tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 24 12:31:56 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Hab SoSlI' Quch

HoHwI' writes:
>        I am a new student of the Klingon language, so bear with me.

I'll be happy to bear with you; new students are my specialty.  I'm called
ghunchu'wI', and I'm the Beginners' Grammarian at the moment.  If you have
any questions about the language, or if you want me to look over something
you've written, catch my attention with the symbol KLBC ("Klingon Language
Beginner's Conference") in the subject line of a note, and I'll try to get
back with a response quickly.

>If you
>were to say *Hab SoSlI' Quch* (You're mother has a smooth forehead), first
>that doesn't seem to fit the grammatical sketch of OBJECT-VERB-NOUN.

Since you haven't explained why you think it doesn't fit, I'm not sure I
can help correct your misunderstanding.  I'll assume you aren't reading
it quite right, and I'll try to show how it does fit.  First, the order
of a Klingon sentence is OBJECT-VERB-SUBJECT.  Objects and subjects are
nouns.  The verb in this sentence is {Hab} "be smooth", the subject is
{SoSlI' Quch} "your mother's forehead", and there is no object.  We call
verbs that express a quality or condition such as {Hab} or {QaQ} or {tIn}
"stative" -- such verbs don't have objects.  (What would the hypothetical
sentence *{vay' Hab} "it is smooth something" mean?)

>I would think it would be *Quch Hab SoSlI'*...

"Your mother is smooth forehead."  I think I understand your problem now.
You're trying to fit the translations of the *words* together, and it's
not a word-for-word translation.  The literal translation of the Klingon
sentence is "Your mother's forehead was smooth."  Klingon uses verbs where
English uses adjectives, so phrases like "Mary had a little lamb" can turn
into "Mary's lamb was little" when the focus is on the lamb instead of the
act of "having".

>...and also would it be more
>derogatory to say *Hab SoSlIj Quch*  -lIj being the possesive for beings
>incapable of language.

I think this overpowers the original insult, pushing it over the edge from
the sublime to the ridiculous.  It would probably be seen as sarcasm, or a
desparate attempt to call attention to oneself, rather than a true insult.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level